I'm agnostic on the policy in isolation, with my main concern being that it should be accepted by the enlisted personnel before being put into effect because the effectiveness of the military should be the primary issue. I simply don't believe that this issue is comparable to racial integration of the armed forces.
Nearly 20 years ago, at an American Historical Association convention, I sat at a lunch seminar table with some big names in military writing. I was shocked in the lunch conversation that they assumed gays would be allowed to serve openly and it would be easy and done very soon. I spoke up and cautioned them that enlisted personnel have a big problem with gays in the military and that it was wrong to assume that anything short of intensive leadership would allow it to be implemented in the near future without causing problems.
Here we are today with the formal ban still in place and the enlisted personnel seem to have far less of a problem with the idea of gays openly serving than the personnel in my day:
Based on all that we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer, the risk of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to overall military effectiveness is low. And as the secretary mentioned, it is important to note that that assessment is based upon the prompt implementation of the recommendations.
We do conclude that while a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will likely in the short term bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread nor long-lasting, and we believe it can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer.
In the longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism and respect, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.
As the secretary and the chairman mentioned, to be sure, the survey results reveal a significant minority, around 30 percent overall, and 40 (percent) to 60 percent in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties, who predict in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." And clearly any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number of other factors that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low.
My advice to any gay soldier even after this ban is eventually lifted is that they should still not tell. At least not more than trusted peers. Like any other soldier, they risk problems if their superiors disapprove of their sexual preferences. This is true of heterosexual troops, too, I should add. There can be subtle (or not so subtle) norms to follow in a unit based on the leadership's preferences. A soldier whose commanding officer is strictly religious probably shouldn't openly talk about swingers' sessions and obscure sexual practices. Nor should a soldier who is very straight-laced about the whole issue expose his or her self to ridicule by a CO who is perhaps more adventurous in their appetites.
The questions of allowing gay troops to openly served should be based on whether it can be implemented without disrupting the effectiveness of our military. Changing society means that the ban will eventually be lifted. But remember that all of society doesn't provide recruits to the military. It is fairly irrelevant to the effectiveness issue if regions of the country that don't provide many recruits think "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed. Unless you want to argue that the northeast and college towns are more likely to step up enlistments with such a gay-tolerant policy, it matters if the existing recruiting base and serving troops feel that way. And while the trend is still in that direction in this demographic, it lags the overall demographic.
Perhaps this is the time to change the policy. But I don't know enough to say with confidence that this is the case.
UPDATE: A writer I respect thinks this is not the time for repeal. And notes that racial integration was done for military effectiveness reasons and not civil rights goals.
